|
SOURCE: eXileMM - www.eXilemm.com
Comparison: USA v. USSR:
The federal government - Not in control
Recent events indicate that the federal government is losing control over
parts of the United States and its economy.
The governors of New Mexico and Arizona have declared a state of emergency
because the federal government has allowed an invasion of illegal
immigrants. In the aftermath of a predicted hurricane, the National Guard
was unable to protect our Gulf Coast citizens from violence, looting and a
complete breakdown of public order. The price of oil and gasoline is
increasingly unaffordable, threatening the existence of our economy’s
transportation and distribution network.
Despite these national emergencies, eighty thousand members of the National
Guard are in Iraq and Afghanistan, including more than a third of the
Louisiana and Mississippi Guard. The National Guard’s deployment to the Middle East has rendered it less capable of protecting our country’s borders or responding promptly to a
natural disaster. The National Guard is part of the organized Militia of
the Several States, but the federal government has usurped its
Constitutional mission, which is “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions.” U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8
In the face of these domestic calamities, Bush II and the Republicrats
remain fixated on foreign countries. They are telling U.S. citizens to
“stay the course” on federal government’s military occupation of Iraq and
Afghanistan. The Bush II administration continues to provoke oil-rich Iran
and Syria, looking for an excuse to spread war throughout the entire Middle
East. One of his so-called Christian supporters, Pat Robertson, has called
for the assassination of the Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected
President of another oil-rich country, Venezuela.
The federal government seems incapable of dealing with our country’s
problems except by attacking other countries. This militaristic and
expansionist approach characterized the penultimate phase of another
welfare/warfare empire - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as
explained by Seweryn Bialer in his book,
The Soviet Paradox: External Expansion, Internal Decline.
Mirabile dictu, the USSR’s final phase was the breakup of its federal
government on Christmas Day, 1991.
Is the collapse of the federal government impossible, or just, for some,
inconceivable?
Some commentators have remarked that not a single media or academic expert
predicted the collapse of the USSR.
One reason might be that American establishment had become too emotionally
invested in the USSR to be able to conceive of its destruction. Well into
the 80s, the political left continued to sympathize with communism in
general and the USSR in particular, opposing President Reagan’s hard line
and supporting a nuclear freeze. For decades, the Cold War against the
Soviets united and galvanized the political right. To varying extents, the
full continuum of America’s political establishment defined itself in
relation to the USSR. To contemplate its fall was to stare uncomfortably
into a void. So no one looked.
But to say that the USSR’s collapse was unpredicted is not to say that it
was unpredictable. Looking back, cracks in the Soviet edifice were visibly
widening. The collapse of the USSR could have been predicted, even though
it was not. But this only confirms Mark Twain’s observation: “The art of
prophecy is very difficult, especially in respect to the future.”
For elites and their minions in media and academia, the notion that the
United States federal government could collapse is similarly inconceivable.
But their inability or unwillingness to imagine such an event does not mean
that it is unpredictable. Like their predecessors who missed the harbingers
of the Soviet collapse during the 1980s, they are so invested in the status
quo that they are blind to the forces that imperil it. If anything, their
collective myopia is yet another sign of the federal government’s
vulnerability.
As outlined in the first part of this essay, the federal government’s
gradual slide into totalitarianism yields numerous points of comparison
between the USA and the USSR. These similarities and others suggest that
the the federal government may soon imitate the USSR in one conclusive
aspect - by unraveling. Examples of these other similarities are:
Demographics: Falling birthrate
A nation that does not invest in its birthrate has no future.
At the time of its dissolution in 1991, the USSR’s birthrate was 17 per
thousand. The USSR’s ethnic Europeans, the Russians, were on the verge of
becoming a minority. The Russians had dwindled to just 50.2 % of the
population of the USSR as a whole.
The remainder of the USSR epitomized the false ideal of diversity, and was
an agglomeration of various ethnicities, nationalities and religions -
Asian, Islamic and Pagan. Wikipedia fulsomely praised this ethnic
hodgepodge as making the USSR “one of the world’s most ethnically diverse
countries.” (But not for long.)
For 2005, the birthrate in the United States is projected to be 14 per
thousand, low enough for America to be ranked 164th out of 220 nations.
To deal with this birth dearth, the federal government has not created
incentives for childbearing, like Australia did with its “baby bonus” tax
credit. Neither has the federal government re-criminalized the twin evils
of abortion and homosexuality.
The federal government’s answer to the falling birth rate is to encourage
mass immigration. The combination of a falling birth rate and mass
immigration from Third World countries means that our country’s
European-American population is on the verge of becoming a minority. The
Census recently announced that Texas has joined California as
“minority-majority State.”
European-Americans are projected to become an ethnic minority nationwide by
the year 2050. In the meantime, mass immigration is transforming America
into a facsimile of the USSR: a powder keg of various national, ethnic and
religious groups that sooner or later will detonate.
Decline in Economic Production
The economy of the USSR was notorious for its inefficient and ultimately
inadequate economic production. But the undeniable decline of the Soviet
economy was not necessarily reflected in all of its official statistics.
Many economists questioned the accuracy of communist countries’ economic
data, a product of governments controlled by one political party. Their
suspicions were later proven to be well-founded. For example, in 1989, the
communist government of the former East Germany announced that its budget
deficits, trade deficits and currency inflation rate were much higher than
had been previously disclosed. According to the New York Times, this
revelation caused “gasps of amazement” from those who attended one its
Parliament’s final sessions.
Like the USSR, the federal government’s rosy press releases about the growth
in America’s Gross Domestic Product doesn’t necessarily tell the whole
story. As was the case with the USSR and East Germany, one-party
governments tend to provide inaccurate economic data. Lacking a true
opposition party, the Republicrats are free to “cook the books.” No one is
watching.
Yet certain undeniable facts indicate a decline in economic production.
Congress recently raised the federal government’s debt ceiling to
accommodate a debt of more than $8 trillion.
Trade deficits set a record every year, indicating we are consistently
producing less and less of what we consume.
Twenty-three percent of working age males are totally and completely
unemployed. Record government debt, record trade deficits and widespread unemployment
are inconsistent with a growing, productive economy.
So we should be more than skeptical as the federal government rhapsodizes
about impressive magnitude of our GDP. We should remember that Orwell’s
Ministry of Plenty announced every year that the standard of living rose
20%. All the while, life in Oceania grew more miserable, as is citizens
toiled to support their totalitarian government and its endless wars.
Currency decline; rising commodity prices
A decline in a nation’s economic production is normally accompanied by a
decline in the value of its currency. Why hold a currency unless you are
assured you can buy things with it?
In 1988, after decades of economic decline and three years before its
dissolution, the USSR had grossly overvalued the ruble relative to the
United States Dollar. As of 1988, the ruble’s official exchange rate was .6
ruble to 1$. The unofficial black market exchange rate was 4 to 6 rubles
per $1. The market decided that dollars were much better than rubles for
buying things.
Like the USSR, the United States faces an internal decline in economic
production. But until recently, the United States Dollar has been shored up
by its continuing status as the world’s “reserve currency” - a status
conferred by foreign investment in the federal government’s
dollar-denominated debt securities. The dollar’s “reserve currency” status
has enabled federal government to accumulate its $8 trillion debt.
But lately the Dollar has come into unyielding downward pressure relative to
the price of an indispensable commodity - oil. Demand for oil tends to be
inelastic. Constant US demand for oil coupled with a steep spike in oil
prices means a weakening US Dollar. If unchecked, this decline in the
dollar will lead foreign investors away from the dollar and towards other
currencies or commodities such as gold or oil itself.
Should the federal government’s military misadventures continue, yet another
reason to short the dollar will present itself. To hold its value against
more expensive commodities, a fiat currency needs plenty of fiat behind it.
Like the ruble, the dollar fate’s is tied to the fortunes, or misfortunes,
of its government’s Armed Forces.
Military Failures in Afghanistan and the Middle East
After a decade of economic stagnation and decline during the 1970s, the USSR
invaded Afghanistan in 1979. The resulting Soviet occupation lasted eight
years and cost 13,000 Soviet soldiers lives. Dubbed “Brezhnev’s biggest
blunder”, the unpopular war set the stage for the rise of Mikhail Gorbachev,
who allowed the the USSR to be dissolved.
The federal government’s current attempt to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq is
going badly. The present casualty count for American soldiers in
Afghanistan and Iraq is 13,000 dead or wounded.
Public opinion has turned against the Middle Eastern War; it is increasingly
unpopular. Yet not one prominent federal Republicrat has called for an end
to the war. According to one Congressional Republicrat, the subject is
“taboo.”
How long until some start asking the question the Russians did: “Is putting
an end to the federal government the only way to end this stupid war?”
The Soviet’s display of military weakness in Afghanistan stirred rebellion
from other quarters. The USSR appeared reluctant, perhaps unable, to deal
forcefully with other insurgencies and secessionists. After admitting
defeat and withdrawing from Afghanistan in February, 1989, the Soviet
government had to pivot and confront opposition along its Eastern European
border. In January of 1990, various ethnic groups demanded sovereignty for
their respective national republics and threatened secession. Chief among
them were the Baltic republics, led by Lithuania. In April of 1990,
Gorbachev admitted that secession was legally possible. In May, Lithuania,
Latvia and Estonia all declared their independence, and pronounced that
Baltic conscripts were no longer required to serve in the Red Army. The
USSR collapsed the following year.
The federal government is now questioning whether its own military
strategies and capabilities are sufficient for it to carry out its purposes.
Its politicians openly question where the federal government is going to
get the troops necessary to carry out its missions. The Pentagon has
admitted that its “two major regional conflict” strategy is inadequate and
outmoded.
Will not this show of weakness embolden those who would oppose the federal
government by insurgency or secession? Like the Soviet government of
yesteryear, has not the federal government breached Machiavelli’s advice in
two important respects, becoming neither loved nor feared?
Conclusion:
Totalitarian governments rule their citizens with power, not principle.
Because they deny the existence of a higher authority or higher law, they
wage atheistic campaigns against the Christian religion. They deal with
falling birth rates by promoting multiculturalism and immigration. When
they face a decline in economic production, they resort to currency
manipulations and finally, military interventionism, e.g., the “Brezhnev
doctrine” or the “Bush doctrine.”
The internal decline that is inevitably the fate of totalitarian states
cannot be remedied by their external expansion. The necrosis of a State, or
of its people, cannot be cured by allowing it to spread to other States and
other peoples. In a futile attempt to outstrip the effects of internal
decline, the totaltitarian government’s expansionist ambitions will overtake
the its military capabilities. The shortfall will result in its failing
occupation of foreign States, andi ts inability to provide for the welfare
of its domestic State and its own citizens.
The domestic failures of totalitarian States eventually cause widespread
dissatisfaction in their citizens. Then, the political upheaval involved in
dissolving their federal governments will appear to them no more threatening
than what they already face - the collapse of public order or the
disappearance of their nations’ borders.
What happened to the USSR can happen here, and for the sake of America’s
citizens, and their forefathers, and their children, will happen here.
Home | Contents | News | Contact |
|